Tweet
For those who don't know about it, there is an incredibly thought-provoking book by Simon Wiesenthal, a Jewish survivor of the Nazi death camps, called "Sunflower." In the book, he recounts a remarkable occurence while he was a slave laborer at a work camp in Poland.
The basic summary is that while on duty at a make-shift war hospital, Weisenthal is taken aside by a nurse who walks him to a room where a man lays dying.
The man is named Karl, and he is a 22-year-old soldier of the SS. He is covered in bandages, having been horribly wounded. Not even his face is visible.
Karl recounts to Weisenthal a great crime in which he had taken part. His SS unit had moved into Dnipropetrosk after there had been some intense combat for the city. His sergeant ordered them to round up all the Jews they could find, which ended up being around 200 or so. They were then packed into a house, sandwiched in as tight as could be. Then the house was set on fire, while the SS troops were told to train their machine guns on the building and shoot anyone trying to get out.
After recounting this story--and going on for a bit about his home life as a child, growing up a good Catholic in Stuttgart before joining the Hitler youth as a kid--Karl begs Weisenthal to forgive him for the crime. He expresses remorse for having been involved and wants Weisenthal to help him "die at peace."
Weisenthal says nothing. After hearing the story, and moving between pity and contempt for the man, he simply gets up and walks out.
The next day, the same nurse takes him aside and informs him the SS man has died in the night, and presents Weisenthal with a small bundle. Karl had asked the nurse to give him everything the SS man had, including a letter to his mother in Stuttgart. Weisenthal refuses the items, but remembers the address, etching it into his brain.
Weisenthal goes on to survive the horrors of the death camps, but he never forgets the incident with Karl. He discusses it with his fellow inmates--who all tell him he did the right thing--but he cannot find peace with the situation.
Years later, Weisenthal is visiting Europe with his wife, as he is now part of a committee that helps track down Nazi war criminals. He decides to go to Stuttgart, and tracks down the mother of Karl. She is now her widow, her husband having been killed in the bombings, and she lives in a virtual ruin. On her mantle is a picture of a handsome young man in uniform, and Weisenthal sees Karl's face for the first time. He also listens to his mother's tale--how Karl had been a good boy, but then he went and joined the Hitler Youth with his friends. Karl's father, a staunch social democrat, was disgusted by his son's embrace of Nazism, but feared saying anything, since the Hitler Youth were indoctrinated to inform even on their own parents. Later, when Karl joined the SS, his father was devastated, and for all intents and purposes disowned him. The mother then talks about the reports coming in from the east of what was happening--the atrocities. But nobody believed them, and she knew her Karl would not have done such a thing. Weisenthal wrestles with the question--should he tell this woman the truth about her son?
When she asks him how he knew Karl, Weisenthal makes the choice--and lies, not telling the mother the truth.
Even at the end of the book, Weisenthal comes to no definitive conclusion about his choice. Did he do the right thing? Should he have forgiven the dying man? He did believe Karl's remorse was genuine, but he also points out it was a deathbed confession. Would Karl have been so remorseful had he not been dying? Would he have gone on committing crimes? Had he been brought to trial, would he been one of the few who actually did express remorse, or would he have claimed to only be obeying orders?
The rest of the book is filled with the contributions of numerous scholars, secular and religious leaders, authors, etc. Among those presenting arguments are Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, and even Albert Speer, writing from Spandau prison.
So what should he have done? What would you have done?
The basic summary is that while on duty at a make-shift war hospital, Weisenthal is taken aside by a nurse who walks him to a room where a man lays dying.
The man is named Karl, and he is a 22-year-old soldier of the SS. He is covered in bandages, having been horribly wounded. Not even his face is visible.
Karl recounts to Weisenthal a great crime in which he had taken part. His SS unit had moved into Dnipropetrosk after there had been some intense combat for the city. His sergeant ordered them to round up all the Jews they could find, which ended up being around 200 or so. They were then packed into a house, sandwiched in as tight as could be. Then the house was set on fire, while the SS troops were told to train their machine guns on the building and shoot anyone trying to get out.
After recounting this story--and going on for a bit about his home life as a child, growing up a good Catholic in Stuttgart before joining the Hitler youth as a kid--Karl begs Weisenthal to forgive him for the crime. He expresses remorse for having been involved and wants Weisenthal to help him "die at peace."
Weisenthal says nothing. After hearing the story, and moving between pity and contempt for the man, he simply gets up and walks out.
The next day, the same nurse takes him aside and informs him the SS man has died in the night, and presents Weisenthal with a small bundle. Karl had asked the nurse to give him everything the SS man had, including a letter to his mother in Stuttgart. Weisenthal refuses the items, but remembers the address, etching it into his brain.
Weisenthal goes on to survive the horrors of the death camps, but he never forgets the incident with Karl. He discusses it with his fellow inmates--who all tell him he did the right thing--but he cannot find peace with the situation.
Years later, Weisenthal is visiting Europe with his wife, as he is now part of a committee that helps track down Nazi war criminals. He decides to go to Stuttgart, and tracks down the mother of Karl. She is now her widow, her husband having been killed in the bombings, and she lives in a virtual ruin. On her mantle is a picture of a handsome young man in uniform, and Weisenthal sees Karl's face for the first time. He also listens to his mother's tale--how Karl had been a good boy, but then he went and joined the Hitler Youth with his friends. Karl's father, a staunch social democrat, was disgusted by his son's embrace of Nazism, but feared saying anything, since the Hitler Youth were indoctrinated to inform even on their own parents. Later, when Karl joined the SS, his father was devastated, and for all intents and purposes disowned him. The mother then talks about the reports coming in from the east of what was happening--the atrocities. But nobody believed them, and she knew her Karl would not have done such a thing. Weisenthal wrestles with the question--should he tell this woman the truth about her son?
When she asks him how he knew Karl, Weisenthal makes the choice--and lies, not telling the mother the truth.
Even at the end of the book, Weisenthal comes to no definitive conclusion about his choice. Did he do the right thing? Should he have forgiven the dying man? He did believe Karl's remorse was genuine, but he also points out it was a deathbed confession. Would Karl have been so remorseful had he not been dying? Would he have gone on committing crimes? Had he been brought to trial, would he been one of the few who actually did express remorse, or would he have claimed to only be obeying orders?
The rest of the book is filled with the contributions of numerous scholars, secular and religious leaders, authors, etc. Among those presenting arguments are Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, and even Albert Speer, writing from Spandau prison.
So what should he have done? What would you have done?
Comment